Retired Staff
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

510 Excellent


About Michael

  • Rank
    I was right
  • Birthday June 17

Recent Profile Visitors

2671 profile views
  1. improve spelling
  2. As soon as the auto-spawn was added (to avoid the problem the rule was originally added to combat) the rule could of been removed. There is literally zero use for it anymore other than causing autismos like florance to get their small brains in a twist.
  3. no. the engine treats everyone as being on the same 'team' and therefore just being able to spectate your own faction like in native isn't possible
  4. Ahaha yes
  5. This argument is totally irrelevant. Obviously running through an active fight to the use the fact people are 'aiming' at you as a kill reason is illegal. Nobody is arguing that it isn't. The facts here is that there is no fight, and Frog decided to aim his lance at Gunzo's horse quite clearly.
  6. There is obviously a limit of common sense, as with everything else. In this case Frog is clearly pointing his lance directly at people in quite a confined place. What he intended to do is irrelevant, the lance is clearly pointed at Gunzo's horse and not at the commoner being halted.
  7. It is clearly stated in the rules that aiming a weapon at someone grants a kill reason. In this rule there is no caveat about the rule not applying during a halt or whatever other point you want to argue, simply that if someone elses weapon ends up pointing at you it grants you a kill reason on them. Simple. No need to argue about if Frog 'intended' to aim at Gunzo, such things do not matter. Those not wanting to get kill reasons against themselves should avoid randomly pointing their lance around in a crowded place during a halt, or just not halt people in general. This is a mistake on Frog's part, and Footman Jack KNIGHT Gunzo should not have been punished for simply following the rules.
  8. What is a Spanish
  9. Implementation of Voice Chat is something for the base game to add, adding it though the mod could be theoretically possible but would be so much work it would be technically infeasible.
  10. I must admit I was not always the most courteous but at least I would clarify a judgement if the complaint was contentious and in a grey area rather that just telling them to fuck off.
  11. Once again, I do not know the exact details of the war today as I was not online however I have received assurances that the war was prepared for. This will be supported by evidence which will be collected now, as it was not prepared earlier seeing as it was not considered necessary. In reviewing the complaint Tommy decided to tell people to " go outside" rather than expand and clarify the rule.
  12. As seen in Bridge Troll's judgement, as linked, the ruling was that once war is declared you must stop logging out en-masse. You are also incorrect in saying that the declaration came before the logged off in that case, as the logs on the 2nd page of that complaint show just over half had logged before the war was officially declared. I can not speak for what happened during the day today, as I have not been present, however that does not effect the facts of the case in that they continued to log out after the war was declared and even though it doesn't have any bearing on the case at all the majority of the log outs fall after the declaration rather that before as after all the complaint was against the group of clans rather than the Whiteruns singularly.
  13. Your in-game name at the time of the incident: N/A The admin(s) you are reporting also include whether they are forum staff, Game Admin or a Head Admin: Game Admin Sofia, SENIOR ADMIN Tommy The time and date of the incident (in GMT+0, anything else will be ignored completely): On Complaint What you claim the admin has done: Incompetence and immaturity The full story: In dealing the the below complaint both admins have displayed a clear lack of understanding of the current rule as they stand, as determined by clear precedent from previous cases as determined by the Head Admins/the admin team as a whole. Although it is unknown what the motive behind the original decision to mark this complain invalid, in conflict with precedent, it has not escaped my notice that this decision was made by an admin who is currently a member of one of the clans being reported. Regardless of this being a breach of the admin rules in its own right through dealing with a complaint against his own clan, I can see no other reason for the complaint being handled in such a manner other than incompetence. In addition, instead of dealing with the complaint in a professional manner Sofia simply told the complainee to 'fuck off' and did not provide any explanation for the determination of the complaint being invalid. Upon being informed of the change in enforcement of the rules, SENIOR ADMIN Tommy chose to solidify the position of his junior. He supported the determination by stating that the majority had logged off before the war was declared, which is not only factually incorrect (17 before, 22 after) but also irrelevant. This, again, shows a clear failure to follow previous precedent which was set to stop a clear threat of clans logging off to avoid a war when they do not feel confident of success as explained here. It was stated then that "even though the Englands started logging of before war was declared, they continued to do so after everyone was aware that a war was now declared" and that thus constituted a clan combat log as those which remained as soon as the war was declared had a duty to "tell the remaining players to stays on the server and/or tell other players to log in again". Like Sofia, Tommy then used the platform to begin a verbal assault against the complainee and the playerbase in general. Before making this complaint I have attempted to clarify the rule with Tommy, and discuss his treatment of the complaint in question, however I have received nothing but silence or a curt line to read the rules. This incident is yet another in a string of poor judgements and mistakes on the behalf of Tommy, of which I do not wish to bring into this complaint directly but should be considered. Proof, and/or anything that will help the investigation (any and all screenshots or video footage for example): For precedent:
  14. almost as good an applicant as cj smith